When I got back from Afghanistan, one of my favorite things to do was go to Wal-Mart.
Honestly, I liked going to any store. On leave, I spent two hours wandering around a Mexican supermarket staring at all the products. But Wal-Mart was so big, so overpowering; everything you could ever need, right there, instantly yours. I've never been much of a shopper, and if you'd told me before that I'd ever love Wal-Mart more than any other place on earth, I might have thought you a bit mad. But if you'd told me that my very favorite aisle in all of that megalopolis of capitalism would be the Barbie aisle, the conversation would have pretty much been over.
I was never much for Barbie either. My mother did not like Barbie, and although I'm sure she would have allowed me to play with Barbie had I been so inclined, I got the distinct impression that Barbie was not the sort of toy I should play with. With her bizarre proportions and her bland, plastic smile, Barbie is the epitome of the brainless female: their mascot, their queen. I was no Barbie girl. I was a tomboy and all my friends were boys: we pulled the heads off of Barbies and played in the dirt instead.
When I grew old enough to understand gender stereotypes better, I was even more anti-Barbie. I was never going to be that girl. I joined the Army. I tried to make a real point of carrying my weight: volunteering for shitty jobs, showing that I could do anything boys can. I went dutch on dates, I didn’t own a hair dryer or a curling iron, I pinned a boy who smacked my ass against the wall and told him I’d kill him if he ever did it again. I sang “Barbie Girl” at Karaoke...but only if I got to do Ken’s part. Barbie: that shallow, materialistic slut. Barbie: with a porn-star body and a disney-princess mind.
And then I went to Afghanistan.
The Army hires locals to do almost any unpleasant task that must be done and can be outsourced: build buildings, do the laundry, clean our buildings, cook our food. And sometimes they’d bring their sons along. Only sons, and only fathers. The few missions I went on, I looked out the MRAP windows at a market street bustling with men: shopping, sitting, talking. There were little girls during one humanitarian mission, but no one older. Once, I saw a woman. Like a black ghost in her burkha, trailing behind her husband as the sun set. Far in the distance. It was the only time.
I saw the way they looked at me. At any of the handful of girls on base. We were an oasis of womanhood after a long drought, even in our ACUs and body armor. The locals who did the laundry stole my underwear once. Granny panties, all of it: the least sexy kind of underwear in existence. But it didn’t matter: they wanted it. We were women: real, live women. I imagine it's what we might feel watching a panda walk through Times Square.
Can you imagine exchanging wartime intelligence for a Playboy magazine? Every Human Intelligence team worth their salt over there keeps a stash of porn magazines, because nothing in that barren land of corruption, terrorism, and opium builds rapport like a naked, smiling woman.
Even the Taliban have porn--but sometimes very different from our airbrushed Barbie-girls. A video captured on a Talib: a woman dancing for a group of men, Bollywood music, shaking her hips. It goes on for about ten minutes. Then, suddenly, the men are following her. And suddenly, she is being gang-raped. And then she is decapitated. The production values aren’t great, because it’s a home movie. It’s real.
When you’re stuck in a windowless room for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for a year, you get bored. So you read the news. You read about the girl in Iran, or Afghanistan, or whichever Islamic nation it is this time, who is to be stoned for adultery. For being raped. For whatever. You get reports of honor killings, and then you read a story about honor killings in Germany.
All this comes together over time and suddenly, it is an act of defiance to be a woman. To have breasts, to be slender with long hair and lips. The 82nd is full of men who aren’t sure if they want to fuck you or get you out of the unit or just make your life miserable: they’ll settle for all three after six months in the desert if you’ll let them. The locals are more polite to your face, but may just steal your underwear behind your back: theirs is the same basic conflict on a deeper and more religious level. You make sure to never bend over at the waist. You avoid casual touch, just in case. You order your sports bras a size too small and your shirts a size too big. You ignore it. You do your job. You live your life.
And eventually, the deployment ends and you come back to America and you go to Wal-Mart just to look at all the stuff you can buy and watch the people with their children buying stuff and you end up in the toy aisle and Barbie is there. Staring back at you.
Barbie, with her beautiful, curvy figure. Barbie, with her designer handbag and power suits and princess dresses. Barbie with her big house and beautiful life. Barbie, sold separately from Ken. Barbie, with her plastic smile: happy and unafraid. Shopping Barbie can drive herself to the mall in her pink convertible. Dancing Princess Barbie can dance without getting her head pulled off by Ken afterwards. Barbie doesn’t have to worry about honor killings, or looking at a man the wrong way: she is free to be fun and sexy, free to be sexual, free to be a woman.
It is not that way everywhere. Meet Sila Sahin: Muslim, Turkish, a soap opera star, and topless on this month’s Playboy magazine cover in Germany. She is beautiful, and the poses are exquisite. "I would kill her.”, a kebab shop owner stated when asked what his reaction would be if his daughter were to pose for such photos. “I really mean that. That doesn't fit with my culture." Islamic extremists have posted death threats on multiple websites against Sahin, calling her a “Western Slut” and stating that “she must pay”. In our culture of easily accessible pornography and erotica, it’s easy to forget that there are many places in the world where the act of baring yourself, the act of being beautiful, is not just a publicity stunt or a way to make money but an act of defiance. Sila Sahin is risking her life by doing what she has done. She is a hero in her own right.
There’s a lot more to being a woman than being beautiful. But beauty and sexuality are part of being a woman. We take for granted the right to walk down the street displaying cleavage or wearing high heels: the right to be beautiful in whatever way resonates most with us. Our bodies are beautiful things: why shouldn’t we be proud to own them? Why shouldn’t a woman be both sexual and brilliant? The true feminist fight is the fight to be a complete and whole person, and that includes the right to breasts and legs, to waists and hips and heels. The right to our bodies. The right to embrace everything Barbie has to offer, without fear.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Barbie, ___, and Sila Sahin
When I got back from Afghanistan, one of my favorite things to do was go to Wal-Mart.
Honestly, I liked going to any store. On leave, I spent two hours wandering around a Mexican supermarket staring at all the products. But Wal-Mart was so big, so overpowering; everything you could ever need, right there. And you could walk out of the store with it: today, right now, you could buy yourself a futon, a chair, an extension cord, a new CD...anything you wanted, and have it immediately. I'd go to Wal-Mart on the flimsiest of pretexts, and spend hours wandering its endless aisles. I've never been much of a shopper, and if you'd told me before that I'd ever love Wal-Mart more than any other place on earth, I would have thought you were crazy. And if you'd told me that my very favorite aisle in all of that megalopolis of capitalism would be the Barbie aisle, the conversation would have been pretty much over.
I was never much for Barbie. My mother did not like Barbie, and although I'm sure she would have allowed me to play with Barbie had I been so inclined, it was
Honestly, I liked going to any store. On leave, I spent two hours wandering around a Mexican supermarket staring at all the products. But Wal-Mart was so big, so overpowering; everything you could ever need, right there. And you could walk out of the store with it: today, right now, you could buy yourself a futon, a chair, an extension cord, a new CD...anything you wanted, and have it immediately. I'd go to Wal-Mart on the flimsiest of pretexts, and spend hours wandering its endless aisles. I've never been much of a shopper, and if you'd told me before that I'd ever love Wal-Mart more than any other place on earth, I would have thought you were crazy. And if you'd told me that my very favorite aisle in all of that megalopolis of capitalism would be the Barbie aisle, the conversation would have been pretty much over.
I was never much for Barbie. My mother did not like Barbie, and although I'm sure she would have allowed me to play with Barbie had I been so inclined, it was
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
On April 29th, 1994, Rwandan State Radio broadcast an ultimatum: by May 5th, the Rwandan capital of Kigali was to be cleansed of all Tutsis. Nearly five years later and thousands of miles away, 45 unarmed Albanians were massacred in the Kosovo village of Racak by Serbian forces. These two events have much more in common than ethnic hatred. Both were watershed events which marked the beginning of what would later be termed genocide. And both events mark the beginning of a particularly intense kind of international attention. Most Westerners are aware of these two events, and the events which came directly after. In Rwanda, the small United Nations peacekeeping force installed to oversee peace negotiations between the Hutus and the Tsutsis quietly withdrew after 10 days, and three months later, extremist forces had slaughtered an estimated 800,000 men, women and children. In Kosovo, NATO began a bombing campaign aiming to prevent exactly this sort of horror, and Slobodon Milosevic eventually surrendered and was tried for war crimes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/11/world/main1391629.shtml). The Kosovo result reads like a textbook victory for the Moralist school of foreign policy I discussed last week: a clearly extremist group attempts genocide and is stopped by a coalition made up of the international community.
But when we begin our story of Rwanda in April of 1994, or Kosovo in January of 1999, we are beginning in the middle. And the end of the Rwandan genocide is not the end of the story of Rwanda, any more than Milosevic’s surrender is the end of Kosovo. What came before? What happened after? Today, I will tell both stories: a story of a nation which we left alone, and a story of a nation we helped out of a moral sense of duty, not national interest.
(http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/rw.htm) The highlands of Rwanda are located in the heart of Africa, east of Lake Kiev: the last part of that continent to be touched by European Expansion. (http://rwandacinemacenter.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dsc00668.jpg). No formal records exist before the German arrival in 1860, but what they found was a Tutsi king and aristocracy ruling over their Hutu vassals. Local tradition states that over the course of many centuries, the tall, cattle-hearding Tutsi migrated into the area and conquered the native Hutu people. Although race certainly played a large part in the distinction between the two groups, it was not the exclusive qualifier: intermarriage blurred the line between the two races, and it was entirely possible to become an honorary member of the other group. By 1860, the distinction was largely one of class as opposed to race.
The year after the Germans arrived, King Rwabuguri died. Elated, the Germans claim the region for the Kaiser. But because it is so inaccessible, Germanic rule is indirect, consisting mostly of agents at the local courts of the region.
All this changes in 1914. When the Germans get cheeky with Belgium’s border at the start of World War I, Belgium returns the favor in central Africa, taking over both Rwanda and Burundi in 1916. The League of Nations upholds Belgium claims in the region once the war ends, and Belgium proceeds to administer its new colonies from the Belgian Congo.
Here’s where things get fun.
Early 20th century Europe was obsessed with the concept of race. When the Europeans looked at Rwanda’s system, they saw yet another example of race dynamics: the superior Tutsis ruling over the inferior Hutus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm). The Belgians did not want to directly rule over inaccessible Rwanda any more than the Germans did, so instead, they institutionalized Tutsi rule. Beginning in 1933, Rwandan citizens were issued a racial identity card, setting the caste system in stone. Many European colonies in Africa used forced labor during this period: what makes Rwanda special is that it was the Tutsis, not the Europeans, at the other end of the lash. Relations between the Hutus and Tutsis had never been harmonious in the past, but this was nothing compared to the resentment now brewing within the hearts of the brutally subjugated Hutus.
In 1957, Hutu leadership published the Hutu Manifesto, which anticipated a racial conflict between the two groups over the political future of Rwanda. When a group of Tutsi political activists beat up a Hutu activist in Gitirama, anger overflows into what is today known as the ‘wind of destruction’. 20,000 Tutsis were killed, and many more fled as refugees into neighboring countries, including the hereditary Tutsi leader, the Mwami. Given this and also the overwhelming Hutu majority in the country (85%), it is no surprise that elections in 1960 result in a near-complete victory for the Party for Hutu Emancipation.
In 1962, Belgium granted Rwanda their independence, and the interim government of the 1960 elections takes over the government of this young republic. The next decade is marked by racial conflict: Tutsi guerrillas from Burundi attempt to take over the Rwandan government until they are stopped only 12 miles from the capital city of Kigali. This leads to a systematic massecre of “subversive elements”: within days, 14,000 Tutsis are dead. This horror and turmoil ends when Juvenal Habyarimana, a military general, takes control of the government in 1973 and rules as a military dictator for the next twenty-one years.
Ethnic tensions do not dissipate. The Tutsi refugees of the 1950s wish to re-enter their homeland. The Hutu government refuses. In 1987, these refugees form the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF, and resolve to topple Habyarimana’s regime. In 1990, Tutsi officers in the Ugandan army desert and move to the Rwandan border with their equipment. The war is ready to begin: a war which will culminate in one of the most singularly horrific acts of genocide the world has ever seen.
Who are the good guys here, in this situation as it stands? Who is the villain? Everyone and no one. The Europeans, undoubtedly the most culpable in this situation, have scarred this nation with enforced racism, but now they have withdrawn and restored sovereignty to the Rwandan people. The Hutus, justifiably angry, have exploded into indiscriminate and monstrous violence against their former oppressors. The Tutsis have subjugated the Hutus for centuries and are poised at the border to retake Rwanda for themselves, yet they cannot remain homeless refugees, subject to brutal massacres every few decades. Whose side would you take? If you had a bomb, which side would you kill, to end this brutality?
A bomb cannot solve such a conflict. The enemy is not a group, but an ideology: the insidious idea that race and tribe makes one group superior to another, that the other group’s existence imperils your own, that they are inferior and must be stamped out. It is the ideology that gave rise to the term “cockroaches” for the Tutsis during this period, the same ideology which subjugated the Hutus under the Tutsi lash, the same ideology which led to the issuance of Racial Identity Cards in the 1930s. Racism is the enemy here: an idea and a concept. All the bombs and humanitarian aid in the world cannot kill a concept. Only those who embrace such a concept can kill it, by rejecting it.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/research-resources/conflict-histories/kosovo.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1530781.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/balkans/workman.html
But when we begin our story of Rwanda in April of 1994, or Kosovo in January of 1999, we are beginning in the middle. And the end of the Rwandan genocide is not the end of the story of Rwanda, any more than Milosevic’s surrender is the end of Kosovo. What came before? What happened after? Today, I will tell both stories: a story of a nation which we left alone, and a story of a nation we helped out of a moral sense of duty, not national interest.
(http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/rw.htm) The highlands of Rwanda are located in the heart of Africa, east of Lake Kiev: the last part of that continent to be touched by European Expansion. (http://rwandacinemacenter.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dsc00668.jpg). No formal records exist before the German arrival in 1860, but what they found was a Tutsi king and aristocracy ruling over their Hutu vassals. Local tradition states that over the course of many centuries, the tall, cattle-hearding Tutsi migrated into the area and conquered the native Hutu people. Although race certainly played a large part in the distinction between the two groups, it was not the exclusive qualifier: intermarriage blurred the line between the two races, and it was entirely possible to become an honorary member of the other group. By 1860, the distinction was largely one of class as opposed to race.
The year after the Germans arrived, King Rwabuguri died. Elated, the Germans claim the region for the Kaiser. But because it is so inaccessible, Germanic rule is indirect, consisting mostly of agents at the local courts of the region.
All this changes in 1914. When the Germans get cheeky with Belgium’s border at the start of World War I, Belgium returns the favor in central Africa, taking over both Rwanda and Burundi in 1916. The League of Nations upholds Belgium claims in the region once the war ends, and Belgium proceeds to administer its new colonies from the Belgian Congo.
Here’s where things get fun.
Early 20th century Europe was obsessed with the concept of race. When the Europeans looked at Rwanda’s system, they saw yet another example of race dynamics: the superior Tutsis ruling over the inferior Hutus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm). The Belgians did not want to directly rule over inaccessible Rwanda any more than the Germans did, so instead, they institutionalized Tutsi rule. Beginning in 1933, Rwandan citizens were issued a racial identity card, setting the caste system in stone. Many European colonies in Africa used forced labor during this period: what makes Rwanda special is that it was the Tutsis, not the Europeans, at the other end of the lash. Relations between the Hutus and Tutsis had never been harmonious in the past, but this was nothing compared to the resentment now brewing within the hearts of the brutally subjugated Hutus.
In 1957, Hutu leadership published the Hutu Manifesto, which anticipated a racial conflict between the two groups over the political future of Rwanda. When a group of Tutsi political activists beat up a Hutu activist in Gitirama, anger overflows into what is today known as the ‘wind of destruction’. 20,000 Tutsis were killed, and many more fled as refugees into neighboring countries, including the hereditary Tutsi leader, the Mwami. Given this and also the overwhelming Hutu majority in the country (85%), it is no surprise that elections in 1960 result in a near-complete victory for the Party for Hutu Emancipation.
In 1962, Belgium granted Rwanda their independence, and the interim government of the 1960 elections takes over the government of this young republic. The next decade is marked by racial conflict: Tutsi guerrillas from Burundi attempt to take over the Rwandan government until they are stopped only 12 miles from the capital city of Kigali. This leads to a systematic massecre of “subversive elements”: within days, 14,000 Tutsis are dead. This horror and turmoil ends when Juvenal Habyarimana, a military general, takes control of the government in 1973 and rules as a military dictator for the next twenty-one years.
Ethnic tensions do not dissipate. The Tutsi refugees of the 1950s wish to re-enter their homeland. The Hutu government refuses. In 1987, these refugees form the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF, and resolve to topple Habyarimana’s regime. In 1990, Tutsi officers in the Ugandan army desert and move to the Rwandan border with their equipment. The war is ready to begin: a war which will culminate in one of the most singularly horrific acts of genocide the world has ever seen.
Who are the good guys here, in this situation as it stands? Who is the villain? Everyone and no one. The Europeans, undoubtedly the most culpable in this situation, have scarred this nation with enforced racism, but now they have withdrawn and restored sovereignty to the Rwandan people. The Hutus, justifiably angry, have exploded into indiscriminate and monstrous violence against their former oppressors. The Tutsis have subjugated the Hutus for centuries and are poised at the border to retake Rwanda for themselves, yet they cannot remain homeless refugees, subject to brutal massacres every few decades. Whose side would you take? If you had a bomb, which side would you kill, to end this brutality?
A bomb cannot solve such a conflict. The enemy is not a group, but an ideology: the insidious idea that race and tribe makes one group superior to another, that the other group’s existence imperils your own, that they are inferior and must be stamped out. It is the ideology that gave rise to the term “cockroaches” for the Tutsis during this period, the same ideology which subjugated the Hutus under the Tutsi lash, the same ideology which led to the issuance of Racial Identity Cards in the 1930s. Racism is the enemy here: an idea and a concept. All the bombs and humanitarian aid in the world cannot kill a concept. Only those who embrace such a concept can kill it, by rejecting it.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/research-resources/conflict-histories/kosovo.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1530781.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/balkans/workman.html
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Dear "Birthers"
Right, so I've been in the hospital for the last four days, so I've got nothing on morality in foreign policy. As I flush the last of the Oxycodone from my system, I've decided to give myself a topic that should be easy and fun, even on drugs.
Dear 'Birthers',
Go away.
I would like to say that I get it, but honestly, I don't. I do understand that, according to the Constitution, any candidate for United States Office must be born in the United States. It's not my favorite part of the Constitution, but I understand the motivation behind it: we don't want to elect someone to our nation's top governmental position who holds a secret or open alliance to another nation above our own.
I also understand that there has been some question about whether President Barack Obama's birth certificate is real or not. Is it a forgery? Was he really born in Kenya? I don't know. Also? I don't care.
I'm not a huge fan of President Obama. I think there are a lot of serious criticisms that can be leveled against the man based on his foreign and domestic policy. Obama's vision for America's domestic policies involves a lot more handouts than I'm comfortable with (along with every president since Coolidge), and I think America ought to have a dialogue about that. Obama's vision for America's foreign policy bothers me too, and it's important to discuss the implications of things like the Libya conflict, and whether Obama has handled our two other foreign wars well. Has Obama's oil policy made things better or worse? What about the effects of his policies on our insane national deficit?
These are big and serious questions. But you're wasting valuable newsprint space and valuable space in the public's mind, trying to convince them that Obama was born in Kenya. It's not an important issue. With all these major problems facing our nation, and no example of a way Mr. Obama's possibly Kenyan roots have interfered with his ability to run this nation, why are you focusing on this? Is it because you believe that the American heartland is too stupid to seriously consider the complex issues above, but might respond well to some good old-fashioned xenophobic sound-bites?
If that's true, we deserve a whole lot worse than President Obama--and we'll get it, too.
I don't believe that has to be true. It's certainly true that the public has been treated like idiots for years. We've inundated them with sound-bites just like this one. Ever since FDR, there has been a concerted effort to convince the American people that a large proportion of America simply cannot survive without Government help. Our education system is in serious trouble. And the fact that barely half of United States citizens historically vote in national elections illustrates either indifference or hopelessness on the part of a significant portion of our society. But a republic cannot survive with a crippled citizenry. Our system of government depends on an intellectual, active society who can adequately process the complex issues facing our country, and come to conclusions based on facts as opposed to sound-bites.
I believe that the vast majority of people willing to voice their opinions on local and national issues do so because they genuinely want to make things better, Birthers included. But you are not helping. You're actively contributing to America's sound-bite culture where domestic and foreign policy is decided based on which side can come up with the cutest attack. Maybe it'll pay off for you today. But we're all going to lose in the end if this keeps up.
So please, Birthers. Go away. Make room for those of us who care about the actual issues. You're hurting America.
Sincerely,
-Laura
P.S. Donald Trump, I'm not going to write you an entire letter because I don't think your ego needs any help, but since you're now included in this 'birther' phenomenon and are of course reading this, could you please just go back to making capitalism look like a joke, as opposed to tracking your bombastic, self-promoting arrogance into the realm of political ideas? I'm willing to negotiate a price--I've got a whole change jar filled with quarters, or maybe I can find some hot supermodels for you to marry or something. Call me.
Dear 'Birthers',
Go away.
I would like to say that I get it, but honestly, I don't. I do understand that, according to the Constitution, any candidate for United States Office must be born in the United States. It's not my favorite part of the Constitution, but I understand the motivation behind it: we don't want to elect someone to our nation's top governmental position who holds a secret or open alliance to another nation above our own.
I also understand that there has been some question about whether President Barack Obama's birth certificate is real or not. Is it a forgery? Was he really born in Kenya? I don't know. Also? I don't care.
I'm not a huge fan of President Obama. I think there are a lot of serious criticisms that can be leveled against the man based on his foreign and domestic policy. Obama's vision for America's domestic policies involves a lot more handouts than I'm comfortable with (along with every president since Coolidge), and I think America ought to have a dialogue about that. Obama's vision for America's foreign policy bothers me too, and it's important to discuss the implications of things like the Libya conflict, and whether Obama has handled our two other foreign wars well. Has Obama's oil policy made things better or worse? What about the effects of his policies on our insane national deficit?
These are big and serious questions. But you're wasting valuable newsprint space and valuable space in the public's mind, trying to convince them that Obama was born in Kenya. It's not an important issue. With all these major problems facing our nation, and no example of a way Mr. Obama's possibly Kenyan roots have interfered with his ability to run this nation, why are you focusing on this? Is it because you believe that the American heartland is too stupid to seriously consider the complex issues above, but might respond well to some good old-fashioned xenophobic sound-bites?
If that's true, we deserve a whole lot worse than President Obama--and we'll get it, too.
I don't believe that has to be true. It's certainly true that the public has been treated like idiots for years. We've inundated them with sound-bites just like this one. Ever since FDR, there has been a concerted effort to convince the American people that a large proportion of America simply cannot survive without Government help. Our education system is in serious trouble. And the fact that barely half of United States citizens historically vote in national elections illustrates either indifference or hopelessness on the part of a significant portion of our society. But a republic cannot survive with a crippled citizenry. Our system of government depends on an intellectual, active society who can adequately process the complex issues facing our country, and come to conclusions based on facts as opposed to sound-bites.
I believe that the vast majority of people willing to voice their opinions on local and national issues do so because they genuinely want to make things better, Birthers included. But you are not helping. You're actively contributing to America's sound-bite culture where domestic and foreign policy is decided based on which side can come up with the cutest attack. Maybe it'll pay off for you today. But we're all going to lose in the end if this keeps up.
So please, Birthers. Go away. Make room for those of us who care about the actual issues. You're hurting America.
Sincerely,
-Laura
P.S. Donald Trump, I'm not going to write you an entire letter because I don't think your ego needs any help, but since you're now included in this 'birther' phenomenon and are of course reading this, could you please just go back to making capitalism look like a joke, as opposed to tracking your bombastic, self-promoting arrogance into the realm of political ideas? I'm willing to negotiate a price--I've got a whole change jar filled with quarters, or maybe I can find some hot supermodels for you to marry or something. Call me.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Libya and America's Foreign Policy: Pragmatism
America’s recent decision to support the Libyan rebellion against Muamar Qaddafi is not the beginning of a new conflict. It is the latest of a long series of skirmishes in a very different war: the war over American foreign policy.
When a nation is threatened directly, the choice is easy: go to war or be destroyed. But the Western world has not had to fight for its existence since 1945, and the question of how to employ our now-superior military force has become much more complicated. When is it proper for America to take military action, either directly against another nation or group, or indirectly through allying with other nations and backing them? Typically, the debate boils down to two basic positions: the pragmatists and the moralists. And both of those positions are flawed.
Foreign policy pragmatists argue that military action is appropriate only when America’s national interests are threatened. A nebulous phrase such as “national interest” can be defined as almost anything, and it has taken many forms over the past seventy years. It can mean actions taken in the nation’s defense, such as the initial attack on the Taliban during the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It can mean actions taken to stabilize a region, such as the war in Iraq. It can mean actions taken for a mixture of economic and foreign policy reasons, such as our support for dictators like King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia or President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen: brutal despots who are nominal allies in the United States’ “War on Terror” and happen to rule oil-rich countries. This is the group which, until recently, included Muamar Qaddafi.
Moralists argue that America must act to stop atrocities around the globe and to use our great wealth to alleviate suffering--because, they believe, it is the right thing to do. It is the moralists who are in favor of the extensive rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the moralists who demanded action in Darfur, Rwanda, and Bosnia. It is worth noting that foreign policy moralists typically do not want the United States to take unilateral action to stop world suffering: they would rather see efforts coordinated through the United Nations or NATO in order to avoid the perception of America prospering from her military actions. Typically, the foreign policy moralists mount a much more emotional argument than the pragmatist: genocide is bad, therefore we must act to stop genocide. The Moralist slogan is, “We have to do something!” This position is less concerned with the end result than with addressing the current crisis.
The Pragmatists want what’s best for America. The Moralists want to do the right thing. Ironically, both sides are fundamentally correct--it is the dichotomy which is false. The morally correct action is always what is best for America, and for humanity as a whole. The true questions are the ones at the foundation of both camps, yet are rarely addressed explicity: What, exactly, are America’s national interests? And what are the actions which will truly uphold humanity and the conditions necessary for human happiness?
Let us address pragmatism first. What are America’s national interests? At the most basic level, it is in America’s fundamental national interest to be safe from attack--both now and in the future. A foreign policy which guarantees peace today at the price of war ten years from now is not in America’s best interest. Neither is a policy which sacrifices safety for short-term economic gains: such gains are useless when one’s safety is in jeopardy. In order to accomplish this, America must attack and destroy nations and entities that pose a direct military threat, seek to ally with friendly parties when such an alliance makes both parties stronger, and leave everyone else alone.
When America is attacked, it is vital to her safety that she respond with overwhelming force, both to eliminate the source of that attack and to deter future attacks from other sources. America’s reaction to the attacks of September 11th is an excellent, albeit imperfect, example of this. The World Trade Center attack was planned specifically to kill Americans: a clear act of aggression. America responded within a few weeks: going after Al Qaeda’s haven in Afghanistan, endeavoring to destroy both the people who planned this attack and the people who provided material support. In the nearly ten years since the beginning of our so-called “War on Terror”, America has lost her way in this, but that’s a subject for several posts all by itself. At the beginning, however, the goal of the Afghanistan war was to destroy our enemies in order to ensure safety. This is both in our national interest and moral. Those who initiate force against others, or knowingly aide those who do so, are violating others’ right to life and liberty; they are declaring that they do not believe these rights exist. To claim such rights for themselves while denying them to others is an unallowable hypocrisy. Destroying such threats to human life and happiness is both morally justified and within America’s national interest.
It is just as vital to American safety that we choose trustworthy allies. Allies of convenience are inconvenient down the road: a trustworthy ally is one which shares fundamental values not only in the realm of foreign policy, but domestic policy as well. America’s proper foreign policy goal is self-defense, not conquest: an American ally should not seek to conquer its neighbors either. Domestically, America is a nation of individual rights and law: an ally of America must also embrace human rights and freedoms.
Ever sincethe assassination of an Austrian archduke led to World War I, it has been clear why allies with imperial ambitions are a poor choice: such an alliance has the potential to make enemies out of neutral nations. When an ally declares unprovoked war against a neighbor, a country must either declare neutrality, earning a reputation as an untrustworthy and undependable ally, or support that ally, earning a reputation as a warmonger. The best and only way to avoid this situation is to avoid allying oneself with the kind of immoral country that goes to war for a cause other than self-defense.
The reasons against having a dictator for an ally are the same reasons against having an imperialist for one: all dictators are, fundamentally, imperialists. An imperialist forces his will upon other nations through violence. A dictator does the same thing--but to his own people. If a dictator believes that the subjugation of individuals within his borders is in its best interest, why would he feel any differently about the subjugation of individuals outside of them? Additionally, a dictator rules because he has made himself more powerful than anyone else within his country. Such an individual will always seek to be the most powerful--and will try to tear down any country more powerful than his while simultaneously milking them for all they’re worth. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. A pragmatist might argue that Saudi oil makes a Saudi alliance well within American national interest, but this is a deeply flawed perspective: America enjoys Saudi crude, and in exchange Saudi Arabia receives American funds which are funneled into terrorist hands. This type of foreign policy is directly against our national interests: it is not a good idea despite morality, but a bad idea because of it. The same things which make a dictator immoral make him the kind of ally that can and will jeopardize American safety in the long-term. Choosing the right allies is key, and we have been doing a miserable job of it for years.
This pales, however, in comparison to America’s failure to recognize when to leave foreign nations alone. These are the type of actions typically endorsed by the Moralist school of foreign policy. When a nation does not poses a direct military threat to America, but is clearly evil, many people’s immediate emotional reaction is to want to stop it, by any means necessary. Unfortunately, such actions are more than simply “not in our national interest”. Such actions are actively against it--and the end results are never “the right thing”.
Next week, I'll explore the Moralist perspective and why well-meaning interference in conflicts such as the Libyan rebellion actively undermines both United States security and global well-being.
When a nation is threatened directly, the choice is easy: go to war or be destroyed. But the Western world has not had to fight for its existence since 1945, and the question of how to employ our now-superior military force has become much more complicated. When is it proper for America to take military action, either directly against another nation or group, or indirectly through allying with other nations and backing them? Typically, the debate boils down to two basic positions: the pragmatists and the moralists. And both of those positions are flawed.
Foreign policy pragmatists argue that military action is appropriate only when America’s national interests are threatened. A nebulous phrase such as “national interest” can be defined as almost anything, and it has taken many forms over the past seventy years. It can mean actions taken in the nation’s defense, such as the initial attack on the Taliban during the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It can mean actions taken to stabilize a region, such as the war in Iraq. It can mean actions taken for a mixture of economic and foreign policy reasons, such as our support for dictators like King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia or President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen: brutal despots who are nominal allies in the United States’ “War on Terror” and happen to rule oil-rich countries. This is the group which, until recently, included Muamar Qaddafi.
Moralists argue that America must act to stop atrocities around the globe and to use our great wealth to alleviate suffering--because, they believe, it is the right thing to do. It is the moralists who are in favor of the extensive rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the moralists who demanded action in Darfur, Rwanda, and Bosnia. It is worth noting that foreign policy moralists typically do not want the United States to take unilateral action to stop world suffering: they would rather see efforts coordinated through the United Nations or NATO in order to avoid the perception of America prospering from her military actions. Typically, the foreign policy moralists mount a much more emotional argument than the pragmatist: genocide is bad, therefore we must act to stop genocide. The Moralist slogan is, “We have to do something!” This position is less concerned with the end result than with addressing the current crisis.
The Pragmatists want what’s best for America. The Moralists want to do the right thing. Ironically, both sides are fundamentally correct--it is the dichotomy which is false. The morally correct action is always what is best for America, and for humanity as a whole. The true questions are the ones at the foundation of both camps, yet are rarely addressed explicity: What, exactly, are America’s national interests? And what are the actions which will truly uphold humanity and the conditions necessary for human happiness?
Let us address pragmatism first. What are America’s national interests? At the most basic level, it is in America’s fundamental national interest to be safe from attack--both now and in the future. A foreign policy which guarantees peace today at the price of war ten years from now is not in America’s best interest. Neither is a policy which sacrifices safety for short-term economic gains: such gains are useless when one’s safety is in jeopardy. In order to accomplish this, America must attack and destroy nations and entities that pose a direct military threat, seek to ally with friendly parties when such an alliance makes both parties stronger, and leave everyone else alone.
When America is attacked, it is vital to her safety that she respond with overwhelming force, both to eliminate the source of that attack and to deter future attacks from other sources. America’s reaction to the attacks of September 11th is an excellent, albeit imperfect, example of this. The World Trade Center attack was planned specifically to kill Americans: a clear act of aggression. America responded within a few weeks: going after Al Qaeda’s haven in Afghanistan, endeavoring to destroy both the people who planned this attack and the people who provided material support. In the nearly ten years since the beginning of our so-called “War on Terror”, America has lost her way in this, but that’s a subject for several posts all by itself. At the beginning, however, the goal of the Afghanistan war was to destroy our enemies in order to ensure safety. This is both in our national interest and moral. Those who initiate force against others, or knowingly aide those who do so, are violating others’ right to life and liberty; they are declaring that they do not believe these rights exist. To claim such rights for themselves while denying them to others is an unallowable hypocrisy. Destroying such threats to human life and happiness is both morally justified and within America’s national interest.
It is just as vital to American safety that we choose trustworthy allies. Allies of convenience are inconvenient down the road: a trustworthy ally is one which shares fundamental values not only in the realm of foreign policy, but domestic policy as well. America’s proper foreign policy goal is self-defense, not conquest: an American ally should not seek to conquer its neighbors either. Domestically, America is a nation of individual rights and law: an ally of America must also embrace human rights and freedoms.
Ever sincethe assassination of an Austrian archduke led to World War I, it has been clear why allies with imperial ambitions are a poor choice: such an alliance has the potential to make enemies out of neutral nations. When an ally declares unprovoked war against a neighbor, a country must either declare neutrality, earning a reputation as an untrustworthy and undependable ally, or support that ally, earning a reputation as a warmonger. The best and only way to avoid this situation is to avoid allying oneself with the kind of immoral country that goes to war for a cause other than self-defense.
The reasons against having a dictator for an ally are the same reasons against having an imperialist for one: all dictators are, fundamentally, imperialists. An imperialist forces his will upon other nations through violence. A dictator does the same thing--but to his own people. If a dictator believes that the subjugation of individuals within his borders is in its best interest, why would he feel any differently about the subjugation of individuals outside of them? Additionally, a dictator rules because he has made himself more powerful than anyone else within his country. Such an individual will always seek to be the most powerful--and will try to tear down any country more powerful than his while simultaneously milking them for all they’re worth. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. A pragmatist might argue that Saudi oil makes a Saudi alliance well within American national interest, but this is a deeply flawed perspective: America enjoys Saudi crude, and in exchange Saudi Arabia receives American funds which are funneled into terrorist hands. This type of foreign policy is directly against our national interests: it is not a good idea despite morality, but a bad idea because of it. The same things which make a dictator immoral make him the kind of ally that can and will jeopardize American safety in the long-term. Choosing the right allies is key, and we have been doing a miserable job of it for years.
This pales, however, in comparison to America’s failure to recognize when to leave foreign nations alone. These are the type of actions typically endorsed by the Moralist school of foreign policy. When a nation does not poses a direct military threat to America, but is clearly evil, many people’s immediate emotional reaction is to want to stop it, by any means necessary. Unfortunately, such actions are more than simply “not in our national interest”. Such actions are actively against it--and the end results are never “the right thing”.
Next week, I'll explore the Moralist perspective and why well-meaning interference in conflicts such as the Libyan rebellion actively undermines both United States security and global well-being.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Dear Mr. Obama
Dear Mr. Obama,
As you probably know from reading my Facebook posts religiously, I have strong emotions when it comes to Libya. Even knowing that, in all likelihood, things are not going to work out at all as I'd like them to (a democratic, modernizing middle east), it's still beautiful when people rise up against oppression.
But now you've committed America to military action in support of this rebellion, and millions of taxpayer dollars are exploding on Libyan soil, and we've already potentially lost the Americans flying the fighter jet that crashed this morning, and that's obviously a whole different can of worms. So if it's all right, I just have a few questions for you about the whole thing.
Who are these rebels? What do they want? Is this primarily a tribal conflict, or a national rebellion? Is al Qaeda involved? What is the rebellion's vision for a new Libya? Are we going to help them rebuild? I've heard some rebels ask for international help and some say they don't want it--which is the official position? Is there an official position? What will they say the official position is once this ends? Why did we wait until most of the rebellion has been crushed to join in and help--if this is the right thing, why is it the right thing now and not two weeks ago? Qadaffi was our ally in the war on terror, or at least we pretended he was--how is this going to effect our other alliances around the globe? Are we planning to rethink our policy of pragmatically supporting various dictators in light of our Libyan reversal? Or is this a special case and if so, why? What is the justification for interfering in this conflict but not in others, specifically Bahrain? What does the US hope to get out of this long-term? How does this fit into our overall foreign policy? How are we defining victory in this conflict? Are we in it until Qadaffi is deposed? If not, what?
Mr. Obama, at this point I don't care if you tell me a story about Nigerian yellowcake and WMDs, as long as you can tell me the answer to all these questions isn't "I don't know".
Sincerely,
-Laura
As you probably know from reading my Facebook posts religiously, I have strong emotions when it comes to Libya. Even knowing that, in all likelihood, things are not going to work out at all as I'd like them to (a democratic, modernizing middle east), it's still beautiful when people rise up against oppression.
But now you've committed America to military action in support of this rebellion, and millions of taxpayer dollars are exploding on Libyan soil, and we've already potentially lost the Americans flying the fighter jet that crashed this morning, and that's obviously a whole different can of worms. So if it's all right, I just have a few questions for you about the whole thing.
Who are these rebels? What do they want? Is this primarily a tribal conflict, or a national rebellion? Is al Qaeda involved? What is the rebellion's vision for a new Libya? Are we going to help them rebuild? I've heard some rebels ask for international help and some say they don't want it--which is the official position? Is there an official position? What will they say the official position is once this ends? Why did we wait until most of the rebellion has been crushed to join in and help--if this is the right thing, why is it the right thing now and not two weeks ago? Qadaffi was our ally in the war on terror, or at least we pretended he was--how is this going to effect our other alliances around the globe? Are we planning to rethink our policy of pragmatically supporting various dictators in light of our Libyan reversal? Or is this a special case and if so, why? What is the justification for interfering in this conflict but not in others, specifically Bahrain? What does the US hope to get out of this long-term? How does this fit into our overall foreign policy? How are we defining victory in this conflict? Are we in it until Qadaffi is deposed? If not, what?
Mr. Obama, at this point I don't care if you tell me a story about Nigerian yellowcake and WMDs, as long as you can tell me the answer to all these questions isn't "I don't know".
Sincerely,
-Laura
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Dear Army
Dear Army,
Every day that we're apart, I realize even more how bad you were to me. It's one thing to say "This can't be normal", or "this is bullshit", but the simple fact is that after a couple years of the same abnormal bullshit, people adjust. It becomes normal. But it wasn't normal, Army. No matter how many times you tried to tell me it was.
Remember when you got me up in the middle of the damn night to go to a re-enlistment briefing where you told me that if I didn't re-enlist, I'd starve in this economy?
Remember when I tried to leave you for a Special Forces support position, and you kept stringing me along before pulling the rug out from under me because you weren't 'willing to let me go'?
Remember how you kept telling me, day after day, week after week, year after year, that the corporate world is just like the Army, the same problems, the same bullshit, and if I couldn't hack it in the Army where everyone's family, the real world would chew me up and spit me out and I'd be begging to get back into the Army but you'd never let me back in because the Army was cutting down on personnel and they wouldn't want me back?
Today, I officially announced to my new company that I am not going to go to college as a full-time student next year, or ever. I told them that I'll be staying on, to work for them, for the forseeable future, opening the way for promotion. In a way, I just re-enlisted for my job.
Wanna know how they got me to do that, Army? Well first off, they offered me money. And I do mean a lot of money. A salary increase, not a lump sum. I'll be making twice what I made in the Army in a couple short months. But that's not why I did it. Don't tell them, but I would have done it for the promotion alone.
Here's some of the stuff that made this an easy decision:
When they made this offer, they made it clear that the offer was because I'm damn good at my job, not because I'm such shit I could never make it anywhere else. They made this offer and said, if you turn it down, that is fine and we'll understand. They encouraged me to take my time and think about it. And I did. Remember that one time a few years ago when I talked to Fisher about re-enlisting and she said that if I didn't sign within the next two days, she wouldn't give me good options? Remember how well that worked out?
And also? They don't waste all their time trying to appear in charge. They don't waste all their time with pointless exercises. Every day for me goes as follows: "There is some work here. Do it as fast as possible in whatever manner you see fit." That is every day for everyone.
When I do a good job, they say "thank you". This is still incredibly disconcerting to me. When I do a good job, they give me credit, and not as a reward and a favor but as a matter of course. I think since I began this job I've gone home at the actual end of the day one time, and that was only because I could no longer ignore what turned out to be a horde of terrorist, antibiotic-resistant bacteria attacking my right kidney--seriously. Every other day, I've stayed late, because there's work to be done. Doesn't mean I always love doing the work, but I've not once hated it.
I can't remember the last time I woke up and thought, I absolutely cannot face the day. Oh wait, yes I can. It was my last day in the Army.
Look, I know that eventually I'll have to stop hating you. You've given me work ethic, and leadership skills, and a crazy appreciation of normal, sane life. But the fact is, you use fear to motivate, and in the end, that's only good for paralyzing people. Fear is stillness. Motion comes only from optimism. I gave you my heart, and you beat the love right out of me--day after day, year after year. You abuse people in the name of unit cohesion, but it's still abuse, and it's not normal. I don't care what you or your lifer lackeys say. It's messed up, how you treated me, and I reserve the right to be angry about it.
So fuck you, Army. Fuck you for hurting me and my friends. Most of the people who are worth a damn will leave you, just as I have, and it's all your fault. It's not me. It's you.
-Laura
Every day that we're apart, I realize even more how bad you were to me. It's one thing to say "This can't be normal", or "this is bullshit", but the simple fact is that after a couple years of the same abnormal bullshit, people adjust. It becomes normal. But it wasn't normal, Army. No matter how many times you tried to tell me it was.
Remember when you got me up in the middle of the damn night to go to a re-enlistment briefing where you told me that if I didn't re-enlist, I'd starve in this economy?
Remember when I tried to leave you for a Special Forces support position, and you kept stringing me along before pulling the rug out from under me because you weren't 'willing to let me go'?
Remember how you kept telling me, day after day, week after week, year after year, that the corporate world is just like the Army, the same problems, the same bullshit, and if I couldn't hack it in the Army where everyone's family, the real world would chew me up and spit me out and I'd be begging to get back into the Army but you'd never let me back in because the Army was cutting down on personnel and they wouldn't want me back?
Today, I officially announced to my new company that I am not going to go to college as a full-time student next year, or ever. I told them that I'll be staying on, to work for them, for the forseeable future, opening the way for promotion. In a way, I just re-enlisted for my job.
Wanna know how they got me to do that, Army? Well first off, they offered me money. And I do mean a lot of money. A salary increase, not a lump sum. I'll be making twice what I made in the Army in a couple short months. But that's not why I did it. Don't tell them, but I would have done it for the promotion alone.
Here's some of the stuff that made this an easy decision:
When they made this offer, they made it clear that the offer was because I'm damn good at my job, not because I'm such shit I could never make it anywhere else. They made this offer and said, if you turn it down, that is fine and we'll understand. They encouraged me to take my time and think about it. And I did. Remember that one time a few years ago when I talked to Fisher about re-enlisting and she said that if I didn't sign within the next two days, she wouldn't give me good options? Remember how well that worked out?
And also? They don't waste all their time trying to appear in charge. They don't waste all their time with pointless exercises. Every day for me goes as follows: "There is some work here. Do it as fast as possible in whatever manner you see fit." That is every day for everyone.
When I do a good job, they say "thank you". This is still incredibly disconcerting to me. When I do a good job, they give me credit, and not as a reward and a favor but as a matter of course. I think since I began this job I've gone home at the actual end of the day one time, and that was only because I could no longer ignore what turned out to be a horde of terrorist, antibiotic-resistant bacteria attacking my right kidney--seriously. Every other day, I've stayed late, because there's work to be done. Doesn't mean I always love doing the work, but I've not once hated it.
I can't remember the last time I woke up and thought, I absolutely cannot face the day. Oh wait, yes I can. It was my last day in the Army.
Look, I know that eventually I'll have to stop hating you. You've given me work ethic, and leadership skills, and a crazy appreciation of normal, sane life. But the fact is, you use fear to motivate, and in the end, that's only good for paralyzing people. Fear is stillness. Motion comes only from optimism. I gave you my heart, and you beat the love right out of me--day after day, year after year. You abuse people in the name of unit cohesion, but it's still abuse, and it's not normal. I don't care what you or your lifer lackeys say. It's messed up, how you treated me, and I reserve the right to be angry about it.
So fuck you, Army. Fuck you for hurting me and my friends. Most of the people who are worth a damn will leave you, just as I have, and it's all your fault. It's not me. It's you.
-Laura
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)